Environment Agency vs High Speed Two (HS2) Limited - Injunction Application Dismissed

Environment Agency vs High Speed Two (HS2) Limited - [2024] EWHC 1560 (TCC) - Case Summary

The High Court has dismissed an application by the Environment Agency (EA) for an interim injunction to prevent High Speed Two (HS2) Limited from carrying out earthworks at two sites in Warwickshire. The judgment, handed down by Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE, addresses significant issues regarding environmental protection and the powers of the court under the Arbitration Act 1996.

The EA sought to halt the works at Glasshouse Wood Cutting and Stonehouse Cutting, arguing that the proposed earthworks could potentially affect groundwater resources and lead to environmental deterioration. The EA's application was made under section 44(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows the court to make orders in support of arbitral proceedings in cases of urgency.

HS2, represented by Richard Kimblin KC and Daniel Henderson, opposed the application, asserting that the proposed works were compliant with the necessary environmental controls and that the EA had not demonstrated the required urgency or necessity for an injunction. HS2 provided detailed evidence of the control measures in place to prevent any adverse impact on groundwater.

Mrs Justice Smith's judgment emphasized the need for the court to avoid interfering with the arbitral process more than necessary. She concluded that the EA had not met the threshold conditions for an injunction under section 44(3) of the Arbitration Act. Specifically, the court found that the EA had not demonstrated that the injunction was necessary to preserve assets or that the case was one of urgency.

The judgment highlighted the extensive negotiations between the parties and the detailed technical evidence provided by both sides. The court noted that while groundwater had been encountered in some trial pits, HS2's control measures, including stopping works when groundwater was detected, were being adhered to and were effective in preventing any likely adverse impact.

The court also addressed the EA's argument that the dry dig and wet dig works could not be disaggregated for the purposes of environmental consent. However, Mrs Justice Smith found that this issue was more appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator in due course, rather than as part of the current application for an interim injunction.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the EA's application for an interim injunction, with costs to follow the event. The judgment underscores the importance of the court's limited role in supporting arbitral proceedings and the need for parties to resolve disputes through the agreed arbitration process.

The case serves as a significant precedent for future disputes involving environmental protection and large infrastructure projects. Legal professionals and environmental law practitioners will closely follow the implications of this ruling for similar cases.

Legal representatives: Estelle Dehon KC and Riccardo Calzavara for the claimant, Richard Kimblin KC and Daniel Henderson (instructed by Winkworth Sherwood) for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1560 (TCC)